CarpaDM wrote:[quote="[url=http://neighbors.denverpost.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&p=2356089#p2356089]Is that because he doesn't fall in line with liberal utopian driven science?

I don't know how the liberals feel, however I feel that he uses religion to try and push his political career and as I've said before Religion cant fix this country....

And, just which laws does Santorum say he wishes to repeal or deny enacting by forcing his religion upon us? Can you cite one and it's source? Methinks you "feel" too much.

He has signed a pledge that EVERY judge he appoints has to support the overturning of Roe as well as Grisworld and incredibly Loving v. Virginia. He pushed through an amendment that said public schools had to teach creationism if they wanted federal funds. He has sworn to end all federal funding for family planning and repeatedly introduced bills to do so. He has repeatedly urged prosecution and imprisonment of doctors that perform abortions. He opposed the repeal of don't ask don't tell and was a huge supporter of DOMA. He was the leading proponent of the Terry Schiavo law that put Federal Judges in the position to usurp family decisions about end of life care because he objects to ending such care. All of those are examples of him using his authority as a Senator to try to promote his religious beliefs into law. Make no mistake, he wants to impose his beliefs on you and me and everyone else, that is the entire point of his campaign.

All those examples you cited can be supported by anyone who is not religious so where is he forcing his religion on existing or future laws? I don't see the connection.

And we are back where we started. Ric says his entire moral and legislative agenda is based upon his reading of the Bible. Yesterday he literally said that environmental concern is not a Christian Value and that our environmental policy should be based upon the biblical standard that "God" gave man dominion over the Earth. Just read what the man says, he never denies that his religion drives his agenda. He is not dumb enough to say he wants to force people to follow his religion, he just says that his reading of the Bible is the only right one and that the law should comply with that reading.

So, his moral compass is the Bible. So, was it with other politicians throughout our history. How can you separate a man and his moral upbringing? I am not religious, I don't read the Bible and I find nothing wrong with what Santorum said. Man does rule over his environment whether you are God-loving or not. Maybe you focus too much on the religious aspect that you begin to lose reason. BTW, where does Santorum say, "his reading of the Bible is the only right one"? I googled for it and it doesn't appear.

What the heck do you think "phony theology not based on the Bible" means. When a man deliberately quotes the Bible as the basis for a policy he wishes to impose through his authority as President how is that not imposing his "religion". I am not saying that everyone who agrees with his position is a right wing wannabe theocrat. Just that he is.

Where exactly did Santorum quote the Bible? Here's what you didn't say Santorum really said:

Obama's agenda is "not about you. It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs. It's about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology," Santorum told supporters of the conservative Tea Party movement at a Columbus hotel.

Do you not understand the definition of theology? It is defined as "the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world" There is no non-religous context for that and to compound it, Santorum then goes directly ahead and cites his "theology" as being Biblical. Are you really telling me that you think that a candidate who says that the opponent has a "phony theology not based on the Bible" is NOT making a religious argument? That is simply and totally ridiculous. When you start making an argument that your policy is based on the Bible you are making an argument that can only be religious.

flyonthewall wrote:it is only considered to be science by 98 per cent of the world's leading scientists-how could that possibly be considered to be real science? The jury is still out on that round earth nonsense too - if the world was round then Sarah would not be able to see Russia so clearly which should settle that issue once and for all.

Out of 640 of the worlds top Climatologists fat boy Al Gore could get only 59 to testify before the U.N. after which 12 recanted and the ones that didn't, fabricated the results in what is now known as "climategate" . I especially don't like Santorum but facts are facts and this was the reason Cap and Trade could not get pushed through. That original 59 would not be 9% so lets talk climatologists and not scientists who know nothing about the world climate. That is like letting a chiropractor do surgery.

Boy, you had me at "fat boy". Now I'm convinced global warming is a fraud!

Anyway, it might have been the scientists want to avoid the politics. Doesn't mean anything about the consensus, does it?

Btw, "climategate" had no substance to it, despite what the denialists say.

We can't separate natural GW from the part that is "man-caused" or we would know how much of this warming period is due to mankind and how much is natural. As far as I know that evidence doesn't exist.

False.

The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased by about 40% from pre-industrial times, and due to the different isotopic concentration of the C in the CO2, we know it comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

There's a lot of literature on the subject with which you're unfamiliar, obviously.

duck wrote:Will Republicans never learn? The earth is flat...we all know it is settled science.

Science by it very nature is never settled. It is dynamic. If one wishes to deal in settled matters then perhaps they should dabble in religious doctrines and dogmas.

Even those are not settled. After all, it was common religious doctrine/dogma that EVERYTHING revolved around the Earth.

That's not entirely true. Only the Catholics in the west of Europe held that, and not necissarily as dogmatic. Eastern Christians never had such issues.

That would be the same Catholic Church Ric Santorum says defines his values as a person and a legislator.

I'm no fan of Santorum but in one post you claim his world view is defined by how he reads the Bible but then here you claim it's the Catholic Church. In his case it has to be the Catholic Church because, as a Catholic, he's not free to interperate the Bible on his own. Just saying'. Also Santorum is not representative of most Catholics, or even Christians in general. He's just another in a loooooong line of blowhards who happen to access to a mic and money. Although he seems a bit more virulent than most. None the less his utopian theocracy will never come to pass because he and his ilk represent a tiny fraction of the population. They are loud and obnoxious but aside from skewing the GOP primaries they cannot put a man in the White House. It takes moderates and independents to do that and he and his ilk drive them away with their insipid moral ululating.

Rodentia wrote:Well this is mainly because Santorum thinks everything is politics and wouldn't know science if he slipped on it and landed on his back.

Even more reason why we need a Science Debate to filter out politicians who are scientifically illiterate!

What I want to know is why anyone would vote down this notion...a science debate is something that is desperately required.

Meanwhile, candidates attend faith forums - as if that's in any way relevant to running a modern country.

Screw that. I want to know what candidates think about things that actually matter - and I want more insight into their understanding of science. Not a bunch of feel-goodery and/or good-natured "debate" over things that can never be settled in this realm.

We need to weed out religious nutjobs that have no understanding and no interest in science when it comes to elections, and a science debate would be a good way to achieve just that. In addition, if mainstream news outlets would stop pretending as if "being objective" meant there are two sides to every story worth equal weight, even when one side is spouting certified nonsense, we'd all be better off, as well. So when a Santorum or a Bachmann say something categorically stupid, the mainstream news should feel free to point out just how what they are saying is just plain wrong, not leave it up to viewers to "decide".

opinionatedcolo wrote:Do you not understand the definition of theology? It is defined as "the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world" There is no non-religous context for that and to compound it, Santorum then goes directly ahead and cites his "theology" as being Biblical. Are you really telling me that you think that a candidate who says that the opponent has a "phony theology not based on the Bible" is NOT making a religious argument? That is simply and totally ridiculous. When you start making an argument that your policy is based on the Bible you are making an argument that can only be religious.

I think what he's saying is that environmentalist in his view have begun to treat global warming in a manner that parallels theology. In his mind they have dogmas, doctrines, practicum, and even revered clergy. I've heard the argument raised by the right before. So in his mind this would be a false theology as would any that stand outside his tradition.

David walker is sounding just like what the doc ordered.We need a social moderate to liberal combined with a strong fiscal conservative.

Also need to add RootStrikers.org

“... 1% of America funds almost 99% of the cost of political campaigns in America. Is it therefore any surprise that the government is responsive first to the needs of that 1%, and not to the 99%?" -Lawrence Lessig

windbourne wrote:Yup. I think that Santorum is a WONDERFUL asset for the neo-cons.

Huntsman - 2016.

Let us hope that Huntsman is willing to run in '16.

Actually, I would vote for Walker in a heartbeat. The man is a true fiscal conservative. While W/neo-cons were running up massive debt, he was speaking against it.He kept quiet for O's first 2 years (had to stimulate the economy), but believes that last year was a joke.

I really like walker. The man is likely to push a number of good things, including a decent balanced budget amendment (needed desperately).

“... 1% of America funds almost 99% of the cost of political campaigns in America. Is it therefore any surprise that the government is responsive first to the needs of that 1%, and not to the 99%?" -Lawrence Lessig

opinionatedcolo wrote:Do you not understand the definition of theology? It is defined as "the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world" There is no non-religous context for that and to compound it, Santorum then goes directly ahead and cites his "theology" as being Biblical. Are you really telling me that you think that a candidate who says that the opponent has a "phony theology not based on the Bible" is NOT making a religious argument? That is simply and totally ridiculous. When you start making an argument that your policy is based on the Bible you are making an argument that can only be religious.

I think what he's saying is that environmentalist in his view have begun to treat global warming in a manner that parallels theology. In his mind they have dogmas, doctrines, practicum, and even revered clergy. I've heard the argument raised by the right before. So in his mind this would be a false theology as would any that stand outside his tradition.

I am sure he is right in that regard - there are indeed nutjobs of all stripes that have attached themselves to the issue of Climate Change like limpets, and they are from both sides. Some of these darlings scream and shout that the planet is about to die and some that evil leftists are trying to shut down industry.

However, whether or not there are loons is in no way, shape, or form, an indication of what the science says, and the science on this matter is very clear and the level of confidence in the default model (aka AGW) is very high.

One has to scrabble far and wide to find an "alternative" to AGW, and every scientific magazine, journal, and body are all saying versions of the selfsame thing - Climate Change is real, the planet is warming, and "human activities" is the only explanation that fits the data.

The next President needs to be Scientifically Literate - support a Science Debate for all Candidates

CharlesDarwin wrote:We need to weed out religious nutjobs that have no understanding and no interest in science when it comes to elections, and a science debate would be a good way to achieve just that. In addition, if mainstream news outlets would stop pretending as if "being objective" meant there are two sides to every story worth equal weight, even when one side is spouting certified nonsense, we'd all be better off, as well. So when a Santorum or a Bachmann say something categorically stupid, the mainstream news should feel free to point out just how what they are saying is just plain wrong, not leave it up to viewers to "decide".

Right, you can be guaranteed that we will always have a group of candidates that are religious nutjobs, but at least let's have a religious nutjob that has some basic clue about science and will therefore fund the right things and take the right advice on science - not call in a guy who writes fiction, but y'know, actual scientists.

The empty journalism that finds "two sides" to every issue are just lazy, but they are also forced into a corner to an extent. Firstly the public like this "he said she said" stuff, and then we have enough ignoramuses in the population so you can always find somebody to take "the other side". Even if the topic is gravity, evolution, or fusion there will always be somebody who will have a firm opinion entirely contrary to everything we know.

As a culture we like to think that this is where innovation comes from, and that the real innovator is always some hokey self-taught backwoodsman who shows up all those intellectual snobs.Nice romance, but complete fiction.

In fact these days most innovation seems to be done by teams of Asians, but that's another story.

The next President needs to be Scientifically Literate - support a Science Debate for all Candidates

flyonthewall wrote:it is only considered to be science by 98 per cent of the world's leading scientists-how could that possibly be considered to be real science? The jury is still out on that round earth nonsense too - if the world was round then Sarah would not be able to see Russia so clearly which should settle that issue once and for all.

Out of 640 of the worlds top Climatologists fat boy Al Gore could get only 59 to testify before the U.N. after which 12 recanted and the ones that didn't, fabricated the results in what is now known as "climategate" . I especially don't like Santorum but facts are facts and this was the reason Cap and Trade could not get pushed through. That original 59 would not be 9% so lets talk climatologists and not scientists who know nothing about the world climate. That is like letting a chiropractor do surgery.

I hate to be the messenger of such bad news, but the U.N. is apparently a willing partner in this 'conspiracy' too. According to the N.Y. Times, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—a U.N. panel—just released a brief 29-page summary of a paper due to be released in full next year.

It says, in part:

It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur in the 21st century on the global scale....It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st century over many areas of the globe.

The report links these predicted phenomena to human-induced climate change, based on the most recent published and peer-reviewed scientific papers.

Oh, and add the Nobel people to the list of conspirators too, because they awarded IPCC (along with your hated enemy, Al Gore) the Nobel Prize in 2007. Such a large conspiracy it seems!

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”― Isaac Asimov